62 comments:

If I can nitpick -- Romney says Franklin discovered electricity. He didn't. Greeks understood static electricity. Gilbert in 1600 first used the word electric. Franklin made a contribution to the study of electricity, but he didn't discover it.

short sentences filled with words with no content! the ever-decreasing circle of campaign rhetoric. it's kind of musical - minimalism of a sub-glass variety: blandness taken to the level of sublimity, motherhood, apple pie, rinse, repeat.

although the fact he read car mags rather than box scores is actually quite appalling. as if one can't do both...

Rumtumtugger said:"short sentences filled with words with no content! the ever-decreasing circle of campaign rhetoric"

You are correct BUT could you imagine any democratic candidate mountingthe same words? I did not think you could- so it's fair to say Romney's words had content.

And what if Romney had gone on to say he would support a policy to give every child under 18 a cash grant of $2,500 a year? That's family friendly and encourages couples to have kids. Which party if any would support that policy? And no means testing involved. For instance,

Romney has one heck of a resume and a significant track record for taking on and fixing major messes.

I prefer a problem solver to someone that it "purer than the rest" on an issue or two.

We have a heck of a repair job to do on America. To restore our economic competiveness, address health care costs going out of control, help restore our global credibility, begin a program of energy independence, to address radical Islam without the spectacular money wastage Bush II has done.

I prefer a Fixer to The Orator from Illinois.I prefer a Pragmatist to the Purest Pacifist or Theocrat.I want a President with ideas after 8 years of disinterest and a pack of people that believe no good idea or issue happened after 1975.

my observation was not partisan: i'm not criticising romney the republican, just romney the speaker. dems, republicans, they're all terrible, all attempting to talk without meaning, and generally succeeding. some say 'oh, that's because they have to build broad coalitions and so they can't afford to alienate anybody'. well, it appears that they merely succeed in alienating *everybody*.

Short sentences are effective. Just the other day, I observed that, for all the scientific talks I've been to, I can't recall a single time somebody has said "Wow, I understood everything that guy said. He must be an idiot!" But you'd be amazed how many people act as though that's not true.

I understand why he would announce in Michigan rather than Mass. And I understand that he was trying to remind of us that we are the world's innovators. But is there a worse metaphor for our ability to innovate and compete in the world than the current Detroit automakers in general and Ford in particular? Ford (and GM and Chrsyler) are not taking "the first giant step" in anything, they are always two steps behind.

I've been to a lot of talks where I've had to listen to long sentences and tried to stave off boredom by translating them into short sentences, the stupidity of which I could them marvel at before obsessing about the door and how to get myself on the other side of it.

I've been to a lot of talks where I've had to listen to long sentences and tried to stave off boredom by translating them into short sentences

That's a great idea. I always sit near the door. Drink lots of fluids so you have a reason to cut out. I mean, if people see you chugging water, and then leaving, they're not thinking you're dissing the speaker who so richly deserves it.

Of all the major candiates of the two parties, he is probably the best qualified. He is the best educated (with relevant education) and has the most relevant qualifications.

But he is highly unlikely to win. Why? First, the obvious: he is Mormon. And secondly, he is the real candidate of the religious right - we now have a president who somewhat came from there, and as a people are too tired of that for another right now. And third, he is Mormon (did I mention that before?)

Doyle is parrotting the usual liberal self-delusionment that they are so much smarter than conservatives, etc. But of course, the reality is quite different. Last stats I saw showed the Republicans with maybe an average of a year of education advantage over the Democrats. But for both parties, the vast bulk of their voters are right about average in both intelligence and education levels. And most people in this country, regardless of party affiliation, can't understand long complicated sentences.

Part of his use of short sentences is probably due to his education, and part due to his experience in business. Most likely, none of it derives from listening to LDS clergy.

Rather, most of the major candidates are lawyers. They are often rewarded in law school for complex writing. Business school is just the opposite. Similarly, judges are lawyers and often don't penalize overly complex lawyerly writing and speaking. But business does.

I read in the State Journal that some Jewish group was getting all bent out of shape that Romney was announcing at the Henry Ford Museum. Yes, Ford was a noted anti-Semite, but wasn't his life and legacy a little bit bigger than that?

I agree with most of what you are saying. But while Mormons have gone mainstream, the public perception of them has not gotten there yet.

When I dealt with a lot of Mormons on a day to day basis, I very quickly found that most of my preconceptions were false. They are mostly extremely hard working, family oriented, and straight as arrows. I did much better with the men though, as the self-righteous side of Mormonism seems to come out more in some of the women. I almost never saw it in the men (I might have seen it more in church if I had attended such).

Bruce Hayden - Part of his use of short sentences is probably due to his education, and part due to his experience in business. Rather, most of the major candidates are lawyers. They are often rewarded in law school for complex writing. Business school is just the opposite.

Romney is a lawyer, as well as a businessman and venture capitalist. Plus a missionary for 2 years.

He decided to get a law degree at Harvard while he was doing his MBA there. Rather bright guy.

When Romney loses he has no one to blame but his own party for their elevation of religion as an issue. Mormons as people seem decent and extremely generous, but when observing their actual beliefs, which Republicans have elevated as an issue in this country, it seems pretty weird. There is a new litmus test in this country based on religion, and I'm sorry but Mormonism seems closer to Scientology in many respects than it is to Protestantism.

He learned it from his parents. Look at those crisp, mono-syllabic names: Lynn, Jane, Scott, Mitt.

My favorite sentence was the declaration: And so, with them behind us, with the fine people of Michigan before us, and with my sweetheart beside me, I declare my intention to run for President of the United States.

FYI, some MI Democrat jewish group is complaining about the venue in which Romney made the speech, the Henry Ford Museum. The smear is that since Henry Ford held anti-semitic beliefs, Romney must be an anti-semite for choosing to announce at Ford's namesake museum. Yeah, the Dems are working overtime here in MI; can't start the smears soon enough. I really don't understand why since MI will never elect a Republican for POTUS (with the exception of Reagan in '84?). For God's sake, effing Kerry took MI in 2004.

As a trial lawyer for 35 years I can assure you that the most effective way to communicate with a typical jury is to use the techniques employed by Mitt Romney. A great communicator and a man with a great resume. He, like Guliani,is a can do guy. More focused on doing than talking.

Hayek said..."As a trial lawyer for 35 years I can assure you that the most effective way to communicate with a typical jury is to use the techniques employed by Mitt Romney. A great communicator and a man with a great resume. He, like Guliani,is a can do guy. More focused on doing than talking."

Ann Althouse said... I've been to a lot of talks where I've had to listen to long sentences and tried to stave off boredom by translating them into short sentences, the stupidity of which I could them marvel at before obsessing about the door and how to get myself on the other side of it."

b...i answered on the appropriate thread. i'm not your "brother". never considered a network that sets up a terry schievo death watch remote to be an accurate news source. if your remote is stuck on faux noise and that is the basis for your beliefs, then god help you cause i can't.

You said:I read about a dozen papers online each morning..give or take.. I get live news feeds at my office from the wires. I do read the WSJ but not their editorials. I read the Times and Chi Trib and the LA Times and SF examiner for US news but also listen to the bbc world news at my desk. frankly i try and read as much as i can on a daily basis.

Fox News - to hdhouse = faux inaccurate, biased reporting.

So, to restate, hdhouse gets his "accurate" news from the following sources:

how can you possible disagree that faux noise is non-news schlock that is totally biased and makes no pretense other than the slogan fair and balanced?

how is that possible? I'm serious.faux feeds you what you obviously want to hear. that isn't news..that is your security blanket.

you obviously know nothing about media and marketing to a niche audience so why is it that you, ignorant beyond belief, keep citing that type of crap as reliable or worse yet, the foundation of your information? how can that possibly be?

You get a pass on being challenged on the substance and "facts" of what you say - after all, you are hdhouse, and as we know from Facts 1 and 2 above, you talk about things that you know nothing about, and then just devolve into name-calling.

That's okay. Be that way. Don't want to cause you any more grief in your middle school years.